Toxic Ignored

The science to prove the risks to pets of various mycotoxins is abundant. As well, there is science to prove a toxic synergy occurs when multiple mycotoxins are present in a food. So why – with all this science to base risk on – have authorities not established regulatory limits for all mycotoxins and their cumulative effect on pets?

Mycotoxins are deadly in high doses, and are scientifically linked to everything from liver or kidney disease to infertility to cancer in low doses. Just a brief overview to some of the science…(various sources provided at the end of the post)…

And then we have the concern of multiple mycotoxins present in a pet food. The cumulative effect – as described by science – magnifies the risk (as compared to the single mycotoxin risk)…

“Mycotoxins that have a common site of action present the greatest opportunity for a cumulative toxic effect. A toxicological potentiation between DON (part of the Trichothecenes family of mycotoxins listed above) and fusaric acid, for instance, has been demonstrated in 8 kg piglets where DON toxicity was augmented when fusaric acid was added in diet (Smith et al., 1997). In another study, it was found that chickens fed combinations of DON and T-2 toxin from hatching to three weeks had significantly reduced body weight gain (Kubena et al., 1990). This variable was not reduced, however, when either DON or T-2 toxin were fed singly, thereby suggesting a synergistic interaction. The toxicity of a particular mycotoxin, therefore, depends on not only its own concentration but also the presence of other mycotoxins.”

The serious nature of mycotoxins has been studied extensively. So…where does the FDA stand on safe levels of mycotoxins in pet food and the cumulative effect of multiple mycotoxins?

Currently, the FDA has only established maximums of aflatoxin, DON (Deoxynivalenol – one variety of the Trichotecenes group), and Fumosins mycotoxin.
Aflatoxins – 20 parts per billion or 0.02 parts per million
DON – 5000 parts per billion or 5 parts per million
Fumosins – 10,000 parts per billion or 10 parts per million

The toxic ignored:

1. There is no regulatory maximum for pet food or animal feed for all other mycotoxins (than the three above);
2. There is no regulatory maximum for a cumulative mycotoxin level in pet food or animal feeds;
3. There is no established LOAEL (lowest observed adverse effect level) or no established NOAEL (no observable adverse effect level) for any mycotoxin in pet food or animal feed.

LOAEL and NOAEL are very commonly used risk-assessment methods. As example, FDA states the NOAEL for melamine and cyanuric acid in pigs is 25 ppm each. Pets should be protected by the same lowest level and no risk assessment for mycotoxins and multiple mycotixins. There is no excuse.

The following email was sent to FDA on behalf of pet food consumers…

One of the deadliest concerns of pet food is the risk of mycotoxin contamination. It was alarming to learn that the agency has no maximum level established for numerous mycotoxins as well as the cumulative or synergistic effect of multiple mycotoxins in pet food.

Authors Herman J. Boermans and Maxwell C.K. Leung published the paper “Mycotoxins and the pet food industry: Toxicological evidence and risk assessment”. The following is some brief excerpts of this report.

“…available reports of acute mycotoxicosis, however, cannot provide the whole picture of the mycotoxin problem associated with pet foods since only a small number of food poisoning cases are published. Veterinarians, furthermore, often overlooked mycotoxins as the cause of chronic diseases such as liver and kidney fibrosis, infections resulting from immunosuppression and cancer. These findings suggest that mycotoxin contamination in pet food poses a serious health threat to pet species.”

This report provides details (citing multiple studies) to the risk of Aflatoxins, Ochratoxins, Trichothecenes, Zearalenone, Fumonisins and Fusaric acid. As well – this report provides details to the synergistic/cumulative risks of multiple mycotoxins and suggests a formula to establish LOAEL and NOAEL risk assessment for pets possibly consuming mycotoxins their entire lives (via pet foods and treats).

On Google Scholar, a search for “mycotoxin + dog food” provides 9,190 results. A search for “mycotoxin + cat food” provides 10,500 results. In other words, there is an abundance of science for FDA to review in order to establish LOAEL and NOAEL assessments for all mycotoxin risks of pet foods and to establish LOAEL and NOAEL for the cumulative effect of multiple mycotoxins. Considering at least 50% of the pet foods available today contain one or more grain ingredients prone to mycotoxin contamination, ATPF encourages FDA to actively protect the pets that consume these foods.

ATPF reminds FDA of our recent pet food testing – our results found mycotoxins in eight of eight pet foods tested – including a grain free pet food. Our results found the pet foods contained from one mycotoxin to up to seven different mycotoxins.

Again, ATPF believes that mycotoxin contamination of pet food is a serious risk even at low levels (due to long term exposure to the pet). ATPF asks FDA to provide pet food consumers protection from mycotoxin risks by establishing and enforcing LOAEL and NOAEL assessments for all mycotoxin risks and cumulative risks taking into consideration the long life of a pet (as compared with the short life of livestock animals). No pet owner wishes to deal with liver disease or kidney disease or cancer caused by long term exposure to mycotoxins. We hope the FDA understands this and takes prompt action to protect our pets.

Share this:

Related Posts

Comments 5

I used to use a grain based cat litter until one cat became ill and started to lose weight. The blood tests showed elevated liver enzymes. Additional tests were non-conclusive and the Vet didn’t believe fungus and mold could be responsible. We all know what happens when mold/fungus gets wet? He said there is no method to test for aflatoxins other than doing a liver biopsy. Even though the Vet did not see a correlation between my grain litter and liver failure, we switched it to pine and monitor his liver enzymes every quarter. Our cat is showing some improvement but he will probably never fully recover, nor will we know the cause.

What’s disturbing about mycotoxins is their ability to remain toxic even after cooking, freezing and exposure to ultraviolet light. The methods used to remove them from grain can involve chemical binding agents. Can we assume processes are regulated and meet some level of criteria before it hits the food chain? Where are the risk assessments?

I would assume the processes to remove any mycotoxin is regulated – but…I doubt it is enforced. And as to the risk to methods to remove mycotoxins – I don’t know. I haven’t researched that. Sorry. I know from speaking to many insiders in pet food that mycotoxin contaminated grains – which should be rejected for use in pet food – are often used because the company needs to keep the plant/the manufacturing line operating. I’ve never been told of any efforts to clean the grains. From what I’ve been told, the major concern is to keep making pet food – no matter the condition of the ingredients.

Granted. We’re all learning. We’re doing that together. It takes one article after the next to connect all the dots about PF. But it still amazes me that there are 100 comments discussing the FDA, the finer nuances of Purina, and the “possibility” of one certain brand (or maybe others) causing pet illnesses. Sometimes the demise of these pets comes very suddenly. It’s shocking and so very sad.

I have never read about mycotoxins or aflatoxins (et.al.) discussed anywhere else in a PF Forum setting, and yet here on TAPF we are so fortunate to be informed about these dangers. Not only about an individual instance of a toxin but now the problem of these toxins in a compounding situation (the negative synergestic effect of them)! Here we have a real explanation for long term damage being done to animals. And yet the discussion continues about the relative safety of one brand over another. I think the most enlightening post came from an insider who described how money drives the purchasing of which quality ingredients and why. Now we understand why sub-quality grain is being used!

I am just as guilty of trying to wade through the commercial PF dilemna as well, trying to eek out maybe a better brand than all the rest. Sometimes I just want to throw the kibble in a dish and be done with it! I am so sick of worrying. But, my pets depend upon me. And if they got sick, on a chronic basis, that feeling would be so much worse! There should be more commentary on articles like this one, more sharing, more explaining to other people WHY pet food has all these risks. We are so fortunate to be given the explanations behind our warnings. It’s becomming a little easier to explain our concerns, to fight the idea of just being PF alarmists! So much appreciation goes to Susan Thixton for doing all this research and giving us more tools to fight the PF Industry. And to keep encouraging one another, to be doing the right thing. Thank you Susan.